ynab_list_payeesLists all payees in a YNAB plan to help you find payee IDs when creating transactions. Use it to retrieve payee details before adding or updating transactions.
Lists all payees in a plan. Useful for finding payee IDs when creating transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | No | The plan ID (optional, defaults to YNAB_PLAN_ID; budgetId is a deprecated alias) | |
| budgetId | No | Deprecated alias of planId (still accepted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it lists 'all' payees, which is a useful scope note, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral quirks like pagination or performance. The bar is lower due to annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage hint is placed second. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It implicitly conveys that payee IDs are returned ('useful for finding payee IDs'), but it could be more explicit about the exact return shape. Still, it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (planId and budgetId), and the description adds no additional parameter details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all payees in a plan, which is a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions its utility for finding payee IDs when creating transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ynab_list_accounts or ynab_list_categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete usage context: find payee IDs for creating transactions. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the purpose is clear enough and the sibling set is large but the tool's specific role is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.